Gigantic release of methane from Arctic Ocean: Massive GW feedback occurring

Poor Debater · Dec 14, 2011

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane - a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide - have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov of the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who led the 8th joint US-Russia cruise of the East Siberian Arctic seas, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said.

"I was most impressed by the shear scale and the high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...f-arctic-releases-greenhouse-gas-6276278.html

What's happening here is the release of methane clathrates from the shallower parts of the floor of the Arctic Ocean. These are basically methane ices that are held in solid state due to the high pressure and low temperature at the bottom of the sea. When the ocean warms (and the Arctic Ocean has been warming very rapidly for the past few decades), the point is reached when the methane can no longer remain solid, and sublimes -- turns to gas. The gas bubbles to the surface and directly into the atmosphere.

The article's statement that methane is 20 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas is actually misleading. Over short timeframes, like 20 years, methane is more like 75 times more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (on a molecule-by-molecule basis). So this is a positive feedback: it was caused by global warming, and it will make global warming worse. Further, as the Arctic Ocean continues to warm, deeper and deeper clathrates will begin to sublime. So this will probably continue for a very long time, and just get worse.

This is big. VERY big. And VERY bad.

Not Amused · Dec 15, 2011

The last major off gas was 2000 gigatons of methane, which raise global average temp 5F.

waltky · Aug 28, 2012

Arctic runnin' low on ice, Granny says if it all melts it gonna be like Noah's flood...

Arctic sea ice reaches record low, Nasa says
27 August 2012 - The melt season is expected to continue until the second half of September

The Arctic has lost more sea ice this year than at any time since satellite records began in 1979, Nasa says. Scientists involved in the calculations say it is part of a fundamental change. What is more, sea ice normally reaches its low point in September so it is thought likely that this year's melt will continue to grow. Nasa says the extent of sea ice was 1.58m sq miles (410m sq km) compared with a previous low of 1.61m sq miles (4.17m sq km) on 18 September 2007. The sea ice cap grows during the cold Arctic winters and shrinks when temperatures climb again, but over the last three decades, satellites have observed a 13% decline per decade in the summertime minimum.

The thickness of the sea ice is also declining, so overall the ice volume has fallen far - although estimates vary about the actual figure. Joey Comiso, senior research scientist at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center, said this year's ice retreat was caused by previous warm years reducing the amount of perennial ice - which is more resistant to melting. It's created a self-reinforcing trend. "Unlike 2007, temperatures were not unusually warm in the Arctic this summer. [But] we are losing the thick component of the ice cover," he said. "And if you lose [that], the ice in the summer becomes very vulnerable."

'Inevitable death'

Walt Meier, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center that collaborates in the measurements, said: "In the context of what's happened in the last several years and throughout the satellite record, it's an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing." Professor Peter Wadhams, from Cambridge University, told BBC News: "A number of scientists who have actually been working with sea ice measurement had predicted some years ago that the retreat would accelerate and that the summer Arctic would become ice-free by 2015 or 2016. "I was one of those scientists - and of course bore my share of ridicule for daring to make such an alarmist prediction."

But Prof Wadhams said the prediction was now coming true, and the ice had become so thin that it would inevitably disappear. "Measurements from submarines have shown that it has lost at least 40% of its thickness since the 1980s, and if you consider the shrinkage as well it means that the summer ice volume is now only 30% of what it was in the 1980s," he added. "This means an inevitable death for the ice cover, because the summer retreat is now accelerated by the fact that the huge areas of open water already generated allow storms to generate big waves which break up the remaining ice and accelerate its melt. "Implications are serious: the increased open water lowers the average albedo [reflectivity] of the planet, accelerating global warming; and we are also finding the open water causing seabed permafrost to melt, releasing large amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere."

Threats and opportunities
Click to expand...

Taxcutter · Aug 28, 2012

Is this another false justification for more regulations and taxation? Is it another pseudo-excuse for funnelling trillions through the corrupt UN?

Panzerkampfwagen · Aug 28, 2012

The other good thing about methane bubbling to the surface is that I believe it can sink ships.

Junkieturtle · Aug 28, 2012

Taxcutter said: ↑

Is this another false justification for more regulations and taxation? Is it another pseudo-excuse for funnelling trillions through the corrupt UN?
Click to expand...

For me, it's yes to the first part(though not just those things), and no for the 2nd answer. We don't need the UN to start cleaning up our own pollutionist tendencies, we need the motivation and the realization that both sides are being played here by people who will benefit from each respective choice. Problem is, climate change denialists are not paying attention to facts, and climate change supporters are over-interpretting every little thing that comes out that might support their position. We need a truthful non-BS conversation about this problem, because it IS a problem no matter how you split hairs about it.

Humans will never destroy the Earth, but they could very easily muck up the tiny percentage of the planet that humans can actually live on enough that it's just not agreeable for us to live there any longer.

Climate change needs to stop being a political tool, and start being a humanitarian one because it affects everyone alike, across the entire planet, regardless of political persuasion, race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, nationality, and way of life. It's about as non-partisan as it can get in who it will end up affecting.

Taxcutter · Aug 29, 2012

If you were really serious about carbon you'd advocate rejection of Fukushima hysteria and call for a massive embrace of nuclear power. Zero CO2 from that.

I don't know what you'd do about China being the world's No.1 emitter of CO2 and Europe and Japan increasing their CO2 emissions due to Fukushima hysteria.

It doesn't seem anybody REALLY believes in AGW. They just want the additional regs and taxes.

Taxcutter · Aug 29, 2012

If you were really serious about carbon you'd advocate rejection of Fukushima hysteria and call for a massive embrace of nuclear power. Zero CO2 from that.

I don't know what you'd do about China being the world's No.1 emitter of CO2 and Europe and Japan increasing their CO2 emissions due to Fukushima hysteria.

It doesn't seem anybody REALLY believes in AGW. They just want the additional regs and taxes.

Junkieturtle · Aug 29, 2012

Taxcutter said: ↑

If you were really serious about carbon you'd advocate rejection of Fukushima hysteria and call for a massive embrace of nuclear power. Zero CO2 from that.

I don't know what you'd do about China being the world's No.1 emitter of CO2 and Europe and Japan increasing their CO2 emissions due to Fukushima hysteria.

It doesn't seem anybody REALLY believes in AGW. They just want the additional regs and taxes.
Click to expand...

I fully advocate more nuclear power. I think it's the way to go, despite the environmental risks, at least in this country, because was have wide swaths of sparsely inhabited land spread throughout the nation. This is definitely one route to take that would cut down on environmental pollution and greenhouse gases, as well as cut consumption of fossil fuels.

waltky · Aug 29, 2012

Granny says when all the ice melts from global warmin' - the world gonna blow up...

Antarctic may host methane stores
29 August 2012 - Ancient organic matter could be converted to methane by microbes

Large volumes of methane - a potent greenhouse gas - could be locked beneath the ice-covered regions of Antarctica, according to a new study. It says this methane could be released into the atmosphere as ice retreats, contributing to climate warming. The findings indicate that ancient deposits of organic matter may have been converted to methane by microbes under the ice. An international team reported the results in Nature journal.

Study leader Jemima Wadham, from Bristol University, said: "This is an immense amount of organic carbon, more than ten times the size of carbon stocks in northern permafrost regions. "Our laboratory experiments tell us that these sub-ice environments are also biologically active, meaning that this organic carbon is probably being metabolised to carbon dioxide and methane gas by microbes."

They estimate that there could be hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon stored in methane reservoirs under the ice sheet. The authors say that the predicted shallow depth of these methane reserves means that they could be destabilised by climate change, and might act as a positive feedback on global warming.

Co-author Dr Sandra Arndt, also from the University of Bristol, said: "It's not surprising that you might expect to find significant amounts of methane hydrate trapped beneath the ice sheet. "Just like in sub-seafloor sediments, it is cold and pressures are high which are important conditions for methane hydrate formation." In their Nature paper, the authors comment that their "findings suggest that the Antarctic Ice Sheet may be a neglected but important component of the global methane budget".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19410444
Click to expand...

bobgnote · Aug 30, 2012

When all the Greenland and East Antarctic sheet ice melts, and SLR goes up 70 m, along come lunar tides, which weigh a lot more, and these will trigger seismic and VOLCANIC EVENTS.

Granny is correct. The world is a-gonna blow up, when all that dang ice melts.

Of course, the odds of us living to see Phase III of runaway warming aren't too good. The odds of us blowing up or burning out, from idiots making nuclear energy media or bombs are way up there.

It turns out, nuclear energy projects are moving, from being hundreds of millions of dollars, over budget, to many billions of dollars, over budget, and if the world is not perfectly at peace OR safe from natural disasters, nuclear media can instantly wind up, like Fukushima, which can mess up, really badly, and the northern Pacific Rim can suddenly become UNINHABITABLE.

But over towards the eastern US, 23 GE Mark I reactors are in service. This puppy can have its cooling system trashed, and it can fail. This is the type of reactor, at Fukushima-Daiichi.

All of us AND GRANNY may just have to eat glowing poo and croak, like froggie.

Taxcutter · Aug 30, 2012

Will hemp suck up all this methane?

bobgnote · Aug 30, 2012

You probably shouldn't have any hemp. Your state should probably just keep trying, to grow corn, until a whole bunch fails, or your farmers salt up the land.

waltky · Jul 25, 2013

Arctic methane release could be costly...

Study: Arctic Methane Release Could Cost Economy $60 Trillion
July 24, 2013 A release of methane in the Arctic could speed the melting of sea ice and climate change with a cost to the global economy of up to $60 trillion over coming decades, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge and Erasmus University in the Netherlands used economic modeling to calculate the consequences of a release of a 50-gigatonne reservoir of methane from thawing permafrost under the East Siberian Sea. They examined a scenario in which there is a release of methane over a decade as global temperatures rise at their current pace. They also looked at lower and slower releases, yet all produced "steep" economic costs stemming from physical changes to the Arctic. "The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic time-bomb," said Gail Whiteman, an author of the report and professor of sustainability, management and climate change at the Rotterdam School of Management, part of Erasmus University. "In the absence of climate-change mitigation measures, the model calculates that it would increase mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion," said Chris Hope, a reader in policy modeling at the Cambridge Judge Business School, part of the University of Cambridge.

That approaches the value of the global economy, which was around $70 trillion last year. The costs could be even greater if other factors such as ocean acidification were included, the study said, or reduced to some $37 trillion if action is taken to lower emissions. As much as 80 percent of the costs would likely be borne by developing countries experiencing more extreme weather, flooding, droughts and poorer health as the Arctic melt affects the global climate, the paper said.

Methane is a greenhouse gas usually trapped as methane hydrate in sediment beneath the seabed. As temperatures rise, the hydrate breaks down and methane is released from the seabed, mostly dissolving into the seawater. But if trapped methane were to break the sea surface and escape into the atmosphere, it could "speed up sea-ice retreat, reduce the reflection of solar energy and accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet," the study said. It said that could bring forward the date at which the global mean temperature rise exceeds 2 degrees Celsius by between 15 and 35 years to 2035 if no action is taken to curb emissions and to 2040 if enough action is taken to have a 50 percent chance of keeping the rise below 2 degrees.

Scientists have said the rise in global average temperatures this century needs to stay below 2 degrees Celsius to prevent devastating climate effects such as crop failure and melting glaciers. However, the International Energy Agency warned last month that the world is on course for a rise of 3.6 to 5.3 degrees Celsius citing record high global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions last year. The Arctic has oil and gas reserves which Lloyd's of London has estimated could draw investment of up to $100 billion within a decade. Environmentalists warn Arctic drilling is too risky and could have devastating consequences for the region.

Source
Click to expand...

Anders Hoveland · Jul 26, 2013

Methane is 20 times more potent of a green house gas than carbon dioxide. Perhaps what they need to do is harvest all that methane and use it for fuel before it sublimes away into the atmosphere.

Roy L · Jul 26, 2013

Anders Hoveland said: ↑

Methane is 20 times more potent of a green house gas than carbon dioxide. Perhaps what they need to do is harvest all that methane and use it for fuel before it sublimes away into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

This idea gets my vote! That much natural gas is worth as much for fuel as the alleged cost of its greenhouse effect.

Taxcutter · Jul 28, 2013

Harvesting the methane and using it makes sense.

Just forget the regs and taxes.

flogger · Jul 28, 2013

We've seen much warmer Arctic temperatures in recent millenia than we see today. We have had greater rates of change than we see today over that period too and we are all still here . This is all just more hysteria whipped up by those moden green zealots who hate all humans frankly.

(Kobashi 2011 Greenland Ice Cores)

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf

Log in or Sign up

Gigantic release of methane from Arctic Ocean: Massive GW feedback occurring

Poor Debater New Member

Not Amused New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Taxcutter New Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

Taxcutter New Member

Taxcutter New Member

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

Taxcutter New Member

bobgnote New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Anders Hoveland Banned

Roy L Banned

Taxcutter New Member

flogger Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Gigantic release of methane from Arctic Ocean: Massive GW feedback occurring

Poor Debater New Member

Not Amused New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Taxcutter New Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

Taxcutter New Member

Taxcutter New Member

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

bobgnote New Member

Taxcutter New Member

bobgnote New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Anders Hoveland Banned

Roy L Banned

Taxcutter New Member

flogger Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches